Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=true, and the description adds real value on top: blank and duplicate entries are silently dropped, entries are capped at 80 characters, and already-lost deals retain their original reason. That preservation rule is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs before invoking a destructive replace.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the destructive replace action and followed by the normalization rules. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the normalization behavior, and the one notable exception (lost deals keep their reason). It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the response contains, but nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter's meaning, and it does: the list is ordered, blank/repeated entries are dropped, and each element is a short phrase of at most 80 characters. Only the ordering's significance (does position matter downstream?) goes unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Replace the organization's lost reasons with this list'), making the whole-list replacement semantics unmistakable and distinguishing it from the sibling read_the_lost_reasons.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the word 'Replace' — an agent can infer this overwrites the entire set rather than appending — but no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit condition for when to call this versus read_the_lost_reasons or any other reason-editing path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.